Banks vs Soundoff strategy discussion thread

[Ace]

Well, gents.
If you are reading this, you have probably noticed that our esteemed veterans Banks and Soundoff are starting their very own CW2 rematch AAR.


If the new AAR is only a fraction entertaining as its predecesor was, we are in for a treat.

Since, they have expressed their wish that their threads are free of strategic comments (obviously any commentator knows opponents forces by reading opponent's AAR), I thought I would start a separate thread dedicated to commenting Banks and Soundoff's strategies. By reading and commenting we can double the fun.

Both players have shared with us their initial thoughts and grand strategies. I will start by commenting Soundoff's plan. The winner of last engagement proposed largely conservative strategy, defending in deep and guarding Virginia, Tennessee, and the coastline. I have played only one PBEM using this strategy, and while I won as the CSA, I found myself in a position of a besieged fort, responding to Union moves, instead of making Union respond to my moves. Napoleon said something like: When a generals leaves initiative to his opponent, he has lost the battle even before the first shot is fired. I am certainly no Napoleon, but I try to be aggressive where and when I can. In fact, it was R.E.Lee's maxim as well. Always have the initiative.

In CW2, I would always start more aggressive early on, trying to disrupt his plans, instead of trying to act where he wants me to fight. After all, only in 61, CSA has parity in men and material. Everything later is downhill resource wise for the CSA.

I would like to know, what others think. What is your favorite approach as the CSA. Feel free to comment Banks Union strategy as well. What are your favorite strategies for the Union.

I look forward to your comments.

[Q-Ball]

Both players seem pretty aware of the potential of seaborne invasion. The Union player certainly has alot of options in that space, and excercising them can force the CSA player to play whack-a-mole, or cede control of parts of the Confederacy. Soundoff seems pretty nervous about the potential here, and sounds like Banks is going to exploit it. It seems to me a good CSA player will leave enough of a garrison in New Orleans to make that swampy city a really tough take, but even without that there are alot of possibilities around the map. New Orleans is just the juiciest target, on several levels.

I'm interested in what both players do in Missouri. In my game vs. Gunnulf, he invested in extra units there, and that does force the Union to do the same, and he occupied Jeff City for a time, but I also wonder about the potential for CSA to get "stuck" there. If you need to pull from Missouri to reinforce other fronts it's difficult to do that. At the same time, it's also a bit of a dead-end for the Union; after you take Fayetteville, there isn't much point to continuing on that axis to Little Rock, since sailing up the Arkansas River figures to be easier by that point

[Citizen X]

The way it is set up now I must express my doubts that the CSA are capable of large and deep aggressive maneuvres and both players seem to share that view. I take it for very much unlikely that even the Valley can be hold if an able Union commander presses for it. In Soundoffs shoes I would rather invest those efforts into holding Norfolk. Interesting that both seem to be thinking solely in military strategies, apart from the blockade. I can imagine that not little will rely on the way the CSA can bring their economic and regional decisions to blossom. Neither one has revealed any plan on that part of the game as of yet.
I am looking forward how this will develop from an ACW 1 approach to a ACW 2 game.

[Ace]

I was mostly surprised his plan includes giving up on Island No 10 and FtDonelson without a fight. They are easy to hold while KY is not in the game. By blocking 2 choke points, you can block a wast area of Confederacy.

My experience with 1.02. patch is you have to industrialize as CSA or you are dead meat. You have to bring up those arsenals and ironworks. I even ignore investing in rail network in order to get the money to buy ironworks and arsenals.

In CW2, as opposed to ACW1, you can choose where to industrialize and what to buy. You can really beef up your economy this way.

[veji1]

I was mostly surprised his plan includes giving up on Island No 10 and FtDonelson without a fight. They are easy to hold while KY is not in the game. By blocking 2 choke points, you can block a wast area of Confederacy.

My experience with 1.02. patch is you have to industrialize as CSA or you are dead meat. You have to bring up those arsenals and ironworks. I even ignore investing in rail network in order to get the money to buy ironworks and arsenals.

In CW2, as opposed to ACW1, you can choose where to industrialize and what to buy. You can really beef up your economy this way.

Ace, do you say that because from late 62/63 onwards the CSA starts having trouble supplying his large forces ? Or is it a force building question ?

[Citizen X]

I was mostly surprised his plan includes giving up on Island No 10 and FtDonelson without a fight. They are easy to hold while KY is not in the game. By blocking 2 choke points, you can block a wast area of Confederacy.

My experience with 1.02. patch is you have to industrialize as CSA or you are dead meat. You have to bring up those arsenals and ironworks. I even ignore investing in rail network in order to get the money to buy ironworks and arsenals.

In CW2, as opposed to ACW1, you can choose where to industrialize and what to buy. You can really beef up your economy this way.

Yeah, that surprised me, too. Normally, even in defence, you want to play as long near the opponents baseline as ever possible. But also with Island 10 being rated strategic and Covington TN bearing a plantation that gives much needed supply and conscripts I would rather defend more forwardly. Banks needs to take them anyway, is he to supply an approach onto Memphis.

[Ace]

Ace, do you say that because from late 62/63 onwards the CSA starts having trouble supplying his large forces ? Or is it a force building question ?

It is a force building question. Every draft and volunteer call gives US more conscripts. Base money, WS, and cc income favors the Union. Union has more draft and requisition cards. So, with every year US the gap in resources increases.

[Ol' Choctaw]

I was mostly surprised his plan includes giving up on Island No 10 and FtDonelson without a fight. They are easy to hold while KY is not in the game. By blocking 2 choke points, you can block a wast area of Confederacy.

My experience with 1.02. patch is you have to industrialize as CSA or you are dead meat. You have to bring up those arsenals and ironworks. I even ignore investing in rail network in order to get the money to buy ironworks and arsenals.

In CW2, as opposed to ACW1, you can choose where to industrialize and what to buy. You can really beef up your economy this way.

I didn’t get the idea that he was giving up on the forts. Just that they were exposed and didn’t hold out long.

That part is true. Unless you build depots and send a division or more they are not going to last. If you do send those forces you may still lose them to stronger Union forces.

Holding Charleston Mo is the best way to delay those moves but also has the same problem. Overland movement is not really an option and supplying a force displaced from there is near impossible. It could be written off is you get chased out and have to move overland.

It is a shame that M Jeff Thompson’s Missouri Guard division is not part of the At Start forces there and never comes into being except in the 63 Scenario. That is about all that kept them out of Memphis until 62.

[Ace]

What do you think about his plan not to raise money via taxes options to preserve NM?
In CW2, CSA is very short on money. Not raising it on every oportunity you get will get you bankrupt. Yearly, you can get 800 $ for 4 NM this way.
Now look what we can do with this money. By paying conscripts, you can spend 375$ for 250 conscripts. Without paying for conscripts, you would get 75 conscripts. That is 175 extra conscripts.
With 175 extra conscripts, you can build 17 infantry regiments for the additional cost of 340 $. We still have 85 $ with which we can purchase 2 artilleries.
So for the cost of 4 NM, you can get 1 full division.

I would rather have 1 division than 4 NM, how about you?

[Ace]

I didn’t get the idea that he was giving up on the forts. Just that they were exposed and didn’t hold out long.

That part is true. Unless you build depots and send a division or more they are not going to last. If you do send those forces you may still lose them to stronger Union forces.

But the forts are in range of depots at Memphis and Nashville. You only have to invest a little in river transportation. And I would not put only 1 division there. I would try to have at least 1/3-1/2 of what the Union can muster. That should be enough to hold against amphibious attack.

[Ol' Choctaw]

I would disagree with him on not raising taxes. It will not make enough difference to be noticed and the extra money can go to building resources and troops, who win battles and gain NM.

Once the major resources are built I would also invest in brigs as runners. Another thing I do is always build the second brig from replacements before I deploy a runner squadron.

I would be more prone to defend Ft Pillow than island #10. Were the positions historic I might invest more. http://www.geographicus.com/P/AntiqueMap/NewMadridIsland10-wardept-1862#fullimage

But with only the island it is too risky and you stand a good chance that the whole force will surrender.

On the Union side, I might be a little tempted to invade Kentucky and catch Tennessee without adequate defenses. Quickly taking Bowling Green etc will deprive the CSA of a large part of the force pool they need.


On Island #10:

If you look over that map you will find there was a lot more than just Island #10 that was fortified and quite a bit of big guns up and down the river for miles. There are over 70 emplaced guns. Many are 24 and 32 Pdrs Parrot rifles and a couple of 10 lb. English rifles. I take it the unnamed guns are 12lb Napoleons. The CSA had 27 elements including 4 brigades and a lot of individual regiments and siege artillery. A little over 7,000 men.

The Union went in with overwhelming numbers. Call it 7 or 8 divisions plus naval support of 6 Ironclads and 11 mortar vessels. I would guess more than 30,000 army and Foote’s fleet.

[Mickey3D]

I would not abandon Island #10 without fighting and I would try to take Paduca if possible. Nashville is also very important and I would not let it to the Union for free. Basically, the South should trade space for time.

I don't know if I would use all Raise Taxes opportunities but Soundoff will definitively need some of them : as identified by Ace, money is a bottleneck in CSA resources.

[Mickey3D]

Banks plan seems very ambitious and I'm very interested to see if he will be able to cope with his timeline.

[Ace]

Banks plan seems very ambitious and I'm very interested to see if he will be able to cope with his timeline.

His plans are sound, but difficult to implement if Soundoff has to say something about it, (especially the seaboard part of it). Also, In CW2, CSA is much stronger in Missouri than in the ACW1 (as was the case in history). In ACW1, every Union player would just rush south with couple of regiments which would arrive with Lyon and would face very little resistance. But that was not the case in history. Price Missouri guard and McCulloh army of the West had a lot more men than Lyon, and this game simulates it well. So for Banks, to repeat Union Missouri rush South would require substantial investment in troops in StLouis(I presume).

So, the players have set their troop purchases in different theaters, Soundoff plans 60% of new troops to place East, and Banks obviously goes for Western strategy. It can create an interesting situation, the one which happened in history as well. Do the CSA redeploys its troops and generals west, or do they try to make a decisive victory in the East.

[bugwar]

Do the CSA redeploys its troops and generals west, or do they try to make a decisive victory in the East.

Do you think an Eastern victory has a reasonable chance for the rebels given the difficulty in taking D.C.?

[Ace]

Do you think an Eastern victory has a reasonable chance for the rebels given the difficulty in taking D.C.?

It is small chance, but can be achieved if the Union is not careful. In fact, in my last PBEM against a solid opponent I managed to surprise him and take DC in 61 while not having numerical superiority in the theater. The basic strategy for the South should be an invasion north of the Valley to Fredericksburg. Threaten DC, Annapolis and Baltimore. In my game, Union sallied to met me at Gettysburg with all its forces, and neglected the chance I could march around him and concentrate at DC. So, there is a chance, but Union has to make an error, and I doubt Banks will make one. In fact, CSA has to be very careful while doing so, because fighting in enemy territory is dangerous and can yield disaster. Just look at the beginning of their last AAR game. So the best strategy for Soundoff would be to try to parry Banks troop build up in the west.

[Jim-NC]

I find it ineresting just how much these 2 know of each other. In many cases, it's as if they are reading each other's thoughts/reports. For example, both players have called for an attack on New Orleans in the same timeframe. So both are preparing for a major clash in the same place at the same time. They even have the same priorities in other areas.

[bugwar]

I find it ineresting just how much these 2 know of each other. In many cases, it's as if they are reading each other's thoughts/reports. For example, both players have called for an attack on New Orleans in the same timeframe. So both are preparing for a major clash in the same place at the same time. They even have the same priorities in other areas.

Meh.
You play enough games against a single opponent and you get set in your ways. apy:
While that is fun, mixing it up with a new opponent can be a real eye-opener in terms of play value.

[Ace]

Soundoff has just posted his Far West strategy. There are couple of points I would like to know why he plans to do it that way. For example, he says he will train cavalry regiment at Springfield and use it to burn depots and tracks at Rolla. Isn't it better to just build lone militia in Rolla for the task. It will be operational in 15 days, long before Union can send anything their way. I would build one militia in Rolla, and one in Jefferson city. They can create havoc before pulling back to Springfield.
Also, using river movement AotW can show up at Fayetville rather quickly. Union does not have the upper hand in Missouri in the beginning.
As for the Far West plan of tearing down forts - it is a sound plan, and it may very well thwart Banks intended Kansas strategy.

I sure hope that he brings mounted volunteers on Golden city expedition. Lone cavalry will not take the city if its loyalty is below 50%.

[Ol' Choctaw]

In Missouri, I was thinking the same thing. The Militia would do the trick.

In the far west, I usually play demonstrations in Golden City and Nevada on turn 1. The mounted volunteers are slow due to their CP penalties and only rangers can reach it before winter. The better bet is just hope it is overlooked and put copperheads and partisans there in Jan.

Capturing the forts is good. Destroying them takes too long. That is a job for follow on units if you can afford any.

[Ace]

Soundoff has updated his thread.

It seems he will go for tax raising after all. He also plans to use 2$ bounty as well. I am not sure it will bring him more recruits though. 2$ bounty has a higher chance of success if your morale is low, but if your morale is high (as initial CSA morale is), you are going to get same number of conscripts by using 1,5$ and 2$ bounty.

Also, he has explained his Western strategy a bit. He plans moving Polk to New Madrid. If reasonably strengthen, he can guard Mississippi axis rather well.
His Tennessee axis will be however left unguarded since he plans no reinforcements in the sector, and I fear he will have to go to planed Memphis-Corinth line rather quickly. He plans to build forts along this line. General wisdom is to always fight in the open. I wonder how this fort building strategy will turn out.

It will be interesting to see if he plans to retreat all forces over the Tennessee river, or will he make a line at Huntsville and Stevenson to guard vital East-West rail line.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Winchester-Huntsville gives the same river crossing bonus. The problem is that the Union can send fleets at least as far as Decatur. I have not tested it but I think that warships can’t travel between there and the next river region.

Again, I find it disappointing that Thompson’s Division is not in Southeast Missouri, late June 61. It is not strong enough to capture Cairo but would make the Union nervous none the less.

[Q-Ball]

Soundoff says he will not reinforce Ft. Donelson. I wonder if he knows that with KY neutral, the Union can still get to Ft. Donelson via the river. It's obviously a critical position, and losing it means the loss of chunks of Central Tennessee. Digging a division in there, enough to discourage an amphib landing, is a good idea IMO.

Corinth is an odd place for a Fort. A Fort in the interior like that, the only purpose in my mind is to protect the depot vs. raiders. Otherwise, it's just a trap

A better spot might be Hopefield or maybe Bolivar, if you want to build a fort. It wouldn't come into play until after Memphis falls, but either place would a tougher take due to the Swampy terrain. Bolivar in particular is really tough to approach overland.

[Q-Ball]

Winchester-Huntsville gives the same river crossing bonus. The problem is that the Union can send fleets at least as far as Decatur. I have not tested it but I think that warships can’t travel between there and the next river region.

Again, I find it disappointing that Thompson’s Division is not in Southeast Missouri, late June 61. It is not strong enough to capture Cairo but would make the Union nervous none the less.

Union warships can navigate the Tennessee, in game, all the way to Knoxville. This makes defending Stevenson and the north bank very hazardous.

IMO, there should be a HR though prohibiting warships from moving past Tuscumbia. If it was really possible to sail ironclads up past Chattanooga, why didn't the Union do that during the Tullahoma campaign?

Because it's actually NOT possible, that's why

There are many other spots like this where the river was probably navigable by steamboat, but NOT in a military sense. If the Union Navy could actually sail to Austin TX, Macon GA, or Montgomery AL, why didn't they? Probably because they actually couldn't.......

[Ace]

I do not think that terrain and fort/city bonuses add up. Either you are outside in the terrain, or you are in fort. So, putting fort in swamp will not increase much ordinary swamp terrain defender bonus.

If you are in lvl 3 entrenchments, and have guns from Decaturville to Decatour, I doubt Union will sail ship all the way to Stevenson if they do not have the port where they can recover cohesion.

And, yes it should be house rule not to sail ships past Tuscumbia. I think the river region north of it can be made unpassable. I think it was in CW1.

[Q-Ball]

I do not think that terrain and fort/city bonuses add up. Either you are outside in the terrain, or you are in fort. So, putting fort in swamp will not increase much ordinary swamp terrain defender bonus.

If you are in lvl 3 entrenchments, and have guns from Decaturville to Decatour, I doubt Union will sail ship all the way to Stevenson if they do not have the port where they can recover cohesion.

I didn't know that on forts.....still, I think Bolivar is a good position to occupy as the Rebs, because it's difficult to get to, and the Union is going to burn some time clearing it

RE: The Tennessee, there are too many spots to occupy to really restrict the Union from sending armored ships upriver. If Island 10 is gone, Decaturville is a pretty easy spot to establish a "Naval Base", even if Donelson is occupied. But as you said, there should be HR anyway preventing a move past Tuscumbia via anything but transports

[Citizen X]

With regards to forts, they not only provide protection for the troops within. They add to the patrol values and extend the ZOC, afaik. So they might aid in not having a place being overrun.

[Ace]

Here is nice article about Union gunships patroling on the upper Tennessee River. The ship was built at Chattanooga since Union ironclads could not pass to upper river past Mussel shoals. So making this river region un-enter-able would be the best course of action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_General_Sherman_%281864%29#Patrolling_the_Tennessee_River

[Ace]

There are many other spots like this where the river was probably navigable by steamboat, but NOT in a military sense. If the Union Navy could actually sail to Austin TX, Macon GA, or Montgomery AL, why didn't they? Probably because they actually couldn't.......

Here is a quote from a Wikipedia article:

In the same year, the McCall brother established a barge-building operation at Macon. The first steamboat arrived on the river in 1829. During the 19th century, the river provided the principal water navigation route for Macon, allowing the development of the cotton industry in the surrounding region.

So clearly, th river was navigable. Why didn't the Union supply Sherman via it. Simply because, it was not navigable to ocean going ships, and they did not had the large port where they could disembark supplies from sea going ships and load them onto river transports. So, the river being represented in the game is OK IMO.

[Ace]

In his last post Soundoff has expressed his grief than few people are using forts in the right way. When used properly, they can be a deadly weapon, although with two sharp ends if used badly. They can create a situation where because of ZOC, enemy is forced to take circumnavigate routes - routes you know he will take because there is no other. And there you can wait and strike at them.

Given the fact he loves positional play, I am surprised he has not setup a redoubt at Culpepper as well. It is a central region to Virginia defense, anchored at Fredericksburg crossing to the East and mountainous terrain to the west.
As opposed to AACW1, redoubts and especially stockades are much cheaper than forts, so they can be used.

It may be just me, but I never loved the forts. They are too positional for me, I always look for counter play.